Good value DSL

Woby_Tide

timbim wrote: »

Ah. It would seem that I'm after cable then. Yes, I already have ADSL, but realise that since uploads are so slow, there would be little point trying to use it for remote desktop or a web server.

ADSL2+ services have uploads as good(if not better than) some cable packages if you have them in the area Sky/Be/O2 (i.e. Be offer upto 2mb upload for £22), depends on your other requirements though

timbim_2

Ah yes. A service that does not stop you from running a server, ie not blocking port 80 would be nice.

rcooke

It is probably cheaper taking in account the cost of power needed to run a server 24/7 and far more reliable to use a third party to host your website (around £30) or use the free web hosting from your ISP.

BexTech

C_Ronaldo wrote: »

Why you calling it DSL for, i call it cable and other people might be the same

Calling DSL cable would be wrong.

SDSL and ADSL are flavours of DSL.

Maybe seeing routers described as DSL/Cable router confused you. This just means that the router can be used on both cable and DSL (ADSL / SDSL etc) however it doesn't come with a modem so you need to also use either a ethernet based cable modem or ethernet based DSL (ADSL / SDSL etc) modem.

toasterman

Upload speeds on any residential or "cheap" business package are all quite low. SDSL can be faster and guaranteed but as mentioned above - a lot more expensive.

You CAN use a standard line for remote desktop, but if you're going to have 50 people logging into it 24/7, no standard cable/adsl package is really going to be suitable.

How many users do you think you will have logged in at one time?

Virgin Media as far as I know don't block any ports...we've run all sorts of things in my house, and not had any issues.

Personally I'd be wary of anyone suggesting "up to" 2mb upload speeds, if your upload speed is important. They can sign you up and give you 256k, and there's nothing you can do about it because they put "up to" in their small print.
Most isps can (and do) do the same, but do your homework on a google search, because Be also offer "up to" adsl 24mb connections in the uk, which as far as I'm aware, have NEVER been reached anywhere.

Woby_Tide

toasterman wrote: »

Most isps can (and do) do the same, but do your homework on a google search, because Be also offer "up to" adsl 24mb connections in the uk, which as far as I'm aware, have NEVER been reached anywhere.

depends what you mean by 'reached', there's a whole host of Be users on their forums with sync speeds in excees of 24meg

toasterman

Woby_Tide wrote: »

depends what you mean by 'reached', there's a whole host of Be users on their forums with sync speeds in excees of 24meg

I've just done a google search on it, and I might have to shut my mouth on that one.

I'm sure last I heard of Be, was in a general rant on some consumer programme or in a news article, about ISPs providing "up to 10mb" and delivering about 4mb in general. I vaguely remember reading that despite Be promising 24mb, the fastest reached in the UK was about 16mb, by someone who lived next door to the exchange.

But it looks like they are actually offering it now...so I take back my earlier slating of Be.

timbim_2

Is 200Kbps good enough to run one remote desktop properly? And would that allow a small server to work? Mind you, since it would only be an email server, and the attachments probably limited, should be good enough, shouldn't it?

toasterman

I work in IT support, and access plenty of company servers via connections with similar speeds, and it works perfectly fine for remote desktop.
Attachments on emails will make no diference - remote desktop just transfers clicks and screen movements, etc. It's irrelevant how big the emails on the terminal server are.